In a dramatic shift in United States policy in the Middle East, President Donald Trump announced yesterday that the U.S. formally recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and that the U.S. embassy will be relocated there from Tel Aviv. Analysts fear that the move could trigger violence and undermine prospects for peace in the region.

Trump’s declaration defied warnings from allies in the Middle East and Europe that naming Jerusalem as Israel’s capital could have dangerous consequences. Pope Francis also spoke out against the decision, appealing yesterday morning for the “status quo” to be maintained . Trump’s announcement was driven by political, rather than diplomatic considerations, as it fulfilled a campaign promise to evangelicals and ardently pro-Israel American Jews.

U.S. officials said that Trump’s decision does not negate the possibility that Palestinians could claim part of Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. They added that the process of moving the U.S. embassy would take years.

Chris:

Jessica, there’s a very good reason why the Pope and other world leaders have spoken out against this decision. It’s very dangerous -- and, I would add, completely irresponsible. Anyway, why would the president do this?

Jessica:

It may seem irrational, Chris, but it’s actually not very surprising. Trump wants to be sure his strongest supporters continue supporting him. He wants to be seen as someone who keeps his campaign promises...

Chris:

...by putting the Middle East in turmoil? Not to mentionputting the lives of Americans in the region at risk?! How could this possibly improve his image, even among his supporters?

Jessica:

I suppose it’s a way to differentiate himself frompast U.S. presidents who promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem while they were campaigning, but then backtracked after they were elected.

Chris:

OK, it’s all about keeping his campaign promises. Hmm… Even if it means that peace between Israelis and Palestinians will probably be more difficult to achieve?

Jessica:

Probably... I feel that the U.S. is losing its leadership position as a trustworthy negotiator in the Middle East… Well, now it’s up to other countries to take on that role.

Featured Topic

This is the topic we suggest you practice in the
Speaking Studio this week, but of course you can role
play or discuss any of the stories on our program.

Time magazine has named “The Silence Breakers” -- the women who helped launch a global conversation about sexual harassment and assault -- as its “Person of the Year” for 2017. The announcement was made yesterday morning, with Editor in Chief Edward Felsenthal saying that the #MeToo movementrepresented the “fastest moving social change we’ve seen in decades.”

Among the women honored by Time are actresses Rose McGowan and Ashley Judd, whose accusations against film producer Harvey Weinstein helped ignite discussion of sexual misconduct in Hollywood. Also named were Tarana Burke, creator of the #MeToo movement, and hospitality workers, politicians, and journalists. Over the past two months, millions of men and women worldwide have shared their own stories of harassment under hashtags including #BalanceTonPorc, #YoTambien, #QuellaVoltaChe, and others.

Timedefines its Person of the Year as the person or group who has most influenced the events of the year, “for better or for worse.” U.S. president Donald Trump, who was named Person of the Year in 2016, was runner-up this year; Chinese president Xi Jinping was second runner-up.

Chris:

This is a terrific choice, Jessica! These women have changed so much for so many people. Since we talked about the ‘#MeToo’ movement a few weeks ago, it has only gotten stronger!

Jessica:

It’s great to see, Chris -- I’m so glad that the conversation that started two months ago has only gotten louder. I’ll admit I was afraid that after a few weeks the discussion would die down.

Chris:

Jessica, do you find it kind of -- well, ironic -- that the 2016 Person of the Year has been accused by the 2017 Person of the Year?

Jessica:

You mean, accused by multiple women of sexual harassment and assault?

Chris:

Yes!

Jessica:

Well, it is ironic... But I’m not just talking about sexual misconduct, Chris. I’m also talking about an imbalance of power between the sexes. If you look at the history of ‘Person of the Year’ winners, you’ll see that women have been chosen very, very rarely. This implies that women have had far less influence than men in shaping world events.

Chris:

That’s even more reason to celebrate this year’s choice -- though it shows how much more work there is to be done. Still, I’m hopeful that this year marks a starttoward true equality.

The world’s largest lithium-ion battery was activated in South Australia last Thursday, and has begun dispensing power to the state’s electricity network. The 100-megawatt battery, built by the company Tesla, is expected to help prevent power shortages in the region and lower energy costs .

The battery was built in just two months, fulfilling Tesla founder Elon Musk’s promise to build it within 100 days. The battery is connected to a nearby wind farm, and will store power produced by the farm. This will increase the supply of electricity during periods of high demand, which is expected to help prevent blackouts like one that left the entire state without power last year.

The next several weeks -- the beginning of Australia’s summer -- will be critical for judging the battery’s success. If it works well, it could help to inspire the launch of similar programselsewhere in the world. Already, Tesla is involved in similar projects in California, Hawaii, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and several Pacific islands.

Chris:

Jessica, this could be one of the greatest technological achievements of this century! If it works, it could prove that renewable energy sources like wind can power even very large areas.

Jessica:

IF it works, Chris. We’ll have to watch what happens this summer. Plus, the battery will provide only a small fraction of the power that the state needs. Diesel-powered generators will also be used to provide power when demand is especially high.

Chris:

But what’s important is that this is a start! If the combination of wind power and battery storage is successful, it could prove that larger projects like this are worth trying in the future.

Jessica:

I hope you’re right… but I’m skeptical. Australia’s national government hasn’t been supportive of using renewable energy, even though South Australia’s government is. Did you know that after last year’s blackout, the country’s energy minister said renewable energy was to blame, because it’s “unreliable?”

Chris:

That’s ridiculous! Obviously, there has to be a system in place for wind power to work, since it’s not windy all the time. Tesla’s battery does this, by storing the energy so it can be used later.

Jessica:

I’m sure that this project will be watched very closely. If the battery doesn’t function perfectly, the government might say that it’s proof that it isn’t a good solution.

Chris:

It doesn’t matter. Other countries are already working on similar projects. In South Korea, for example, a battery 50 percent larger than Tesla’s will be activated next year! There’s no choice but to continue with projects like this. And there’s no turning back.

When Montréal tried to boast that it had North America’s largest Christmas tree last year, their plan failed. The tree the city got wasn’t the tallest -- but in many people’s opinion, it was the ugliest. This year, the city has decided to embrace the tradition, not only erecting a new “ugly” Christmas tree, but also setting up an entire village around it.

The “Village du Vilain Sapin” (“Village of the Ugly Tree”), open until Christmas Eve, celebrates imperfections. In the center of the village is this year’s tree -- shorter than last year’s, but with a curling top. There is a selfie stick near the tree so that visitors can take photos with it. There are also baskets of “ugly” fruit and vegetables for sale, along with juices made from them.

The co-founder of the village said that the concept is suitable to Montréal. “Montréal is a peaceful, tolerant, and open-to-minorities city, so it surefeels right to introduce a new tradition like this one,” said Philippe Pelletier. “Montréal is perfectly imperfect, and so is our Christmas tree.”

Chris:

Have you seen the movie The Nightmare Before Christmas, Jessica?

Jessica:

Yes. A lot of people say the tree in Montréal looks just like the one in that film.

Chris:

It does -- and it isn’t ugly at all! It has character. Who wants all Christmas trees to look exactly the same?

Jessica:

Did you know that this isn’t the first time that a city has gained attention for having an ‘ugly’ Christmas tree?

Chris:

It isn’t?

Jessica:

No. Three years ago, in one town in the United States, residents complained that the Christmas tree there was ugly, and sparse. People called the city asking for it to be taken down.

Chris:

What happened?

Jessica:

Well, at the last minute, the mayor decided to save it. I guess he saw a marketing opportunity -- he thought people would come from nearby states to see what all the fuss was about.

Chris:

Of course! Jessica, I have a trivia question for you, too.

Jessica:

What’s that?

Chris:

Do you know which city has the world’s tallest Christmas tree?

Jessica:

Umm… New York, in Rockefeller Center?

Chris:

No! Colombo, Sri Lanka. At least it did last year. The tree was 238 feet tall, and had around 1 million pine cones and 600,000 LED lights. ...but it was artificial.

Jessica:

Hmm. I thought that most Sri Lankans were Buddhist.

Chris:

That’s the beauty of the story, Jessica! Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians worked together to put the tree up. They saw it as a source of pride. People said that tree was ugly, too… but it had special significance.

Me too. On July 20th, 1969, an estimated 600 million people around the world watched on TV as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, stepped on the moon after their daring journey. It was a touching moment.

Chris:

I love the poetic phrase that Armstrong used when he first stepped on the moon: “One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Jessica:

That was what Armstrong claimed to have said. On the transmission, you can only hear: “One small step for man…” There is no “a,” which alters the meaning drastically.

Chris:

Really? What do you mean, exactly?

Jessica:

If he had said “a man,” instead of just “man,” it would have been clear that he meant that his footstep was a symbol for humanity’s progress. Most thought that Armstrong simply made a mistake there, but he maintained to his death in 2012 that he did say it, but it was inaudible.

Chris:

Maybe the “a” was muffled by static?

Jessica:

That’s the controversy! A recent study with the most up-to-date sound equipmentconcluded, with a high degree of certainty, that Armstrong did not say the “a.” There simply wasn’t enough space in the transmission between the word “for” and the word “man.”

Chris:

I would be interested to know whether he came up with the phrase himself, or if NASAscripted it.

Jessica:

That’s an interesting question. Armstrong said he thought of it in the moment, but his brother has said that they discussed this movinglinebefore the Apollo 11 mission to the moon.

Chris:

I always wondered because Armstrong and Aldrin left a plaque on the moon with a very similar inscription: “Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon, July 1969, A.D. We came in peace for all mankind."

Jessica:

The sentiment and wordingare very similar!

Chris:

Ultimately, the issue of the quote is kind of insignificantcompared to the accomplishments of the space race, don’t you think? I am amazed at how fast the moon landing became a reality.

Jessica:

Remember, it was the Soviets who had originallyblazed the trail for space exploration. One of the most shocking and frightening events we Americans have ever experienced was when the Russian satelliteSputnikorbited the earth in 1957.

Chris:

Yeah, that was a wake-up call! Americans thought that the Soviet Union was far behind technologically. Then Sputnik came, and in 1961, we were shocked again when Yuri Gagarin orbited the earth.

Jessica:

It led to a drastic reorganization of our priorities. After Sputnik, American wealth and resolvewere focused on winning the space race. The moon had become the new frontier. The pursuit of this goal gave the US a technological advantagefor decades to come.

Chris:

That change in thinking was reinforced by John F. Kennedy’s famous “moon speech” in 1962. He said: “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win.”

Jessica:

Nice Kennedy impression, Chris. Inspiring words from another American icon... Would you like to go to the moon some day?

Chris:

I may be a little “out there,” Jessica, but the only space exploration I’m interested in is right here on Earth… in a planetarium.

Participial adjectives are a subset of adjectives. Like all adjectives, they are used to describe nouns. They can be identified by their endings, usually either –ed or –ing. Participial adjectives often have the opposite meaning of the adjective in the other participle verb.

I am so bored.I feel boredom.

I am so boring.I am causing other people to feel boredom.

I. Present Participle Adjectives (Ending in -ing)

We usually use the present participle (ending in –ing) to talk about the person, thing, or situation which has caused the feeling. It is generally formed by taking the verb and adding –ing.

I read a very interesting book about language.The book caused the speaker to feel interest.

Many people find insects frightening.Insects cause many people to be frightened.

It was a shocking movie.The movie caused viewers to feel shock.

II. Past Participle Adjectives (Ending in -ed)

We usually use the present participle (ending in –ed) to express how the person feels. It is generally formed by taking the verb and adding –ed.

I am very interested in learning more about language.The speaker feels interest in language.

Many people are frightened by insects.Many people feel frightened.

I was shocked by the movie.The speaker felt shock after watching the movie.

Well, you don’t really see many ads for cigarettes these days. So what comes to mind are those vintage ads from the 50s and 60s. They were hilarious! I saw some in an antique shop once. One ad for Camel cigarettes shows a doctor holding a pack and the slogan: Give your throat a vacation - Smoke a fresh cigarette. Can you believe it?! Those posters are collectible items now!

Jessica:

You found them hilarious?

Chris:

Sure, in a ridiculous sort of way… Times were different back then! People didn’t really know what cigarettes were doing to their lungs, but now there are plenty of ads on TV and in newspapers that detail the negative health effects of smoking. The addictiveness of cigarettes, the dangers of secondhand smoke, and other health concerns...

Jessica:

Have you noticed that all of those ads mention a certainFederal Court order?

Chris:

Yeah, I know what you are referring to. They are "corrective statements," part of a court-ordered ad campaign that tobacco companies in the United States must release to inform the public about the dangers of smoking. I’m actually glad to see them! I think they are a good remedy for the damage done by tobacco companies in the past. And they have to pay for them, too, which adds to the penalty. That campaign definitelycost them an arm and a leg!

Jessica:

Sure, they are expensive, but the whole campaign is just a drop in the bucket! It’s simply not enough to undo the harmcaused by their deceptive practices . A few ads paid for by Big Tobacco – Philip Morris, Lorillard, and some others – cannot repair the damage done by 50 years of civil fraud.

Chris:

It may be a drop in the bucket, but the ads are still meant, to some extent, to reverse some of the damage by admitting that they lied and providing real information about the consequences of smoking.

Jessica:

Reverse? Cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the US alone. That’s more than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, car accidents and gun-related incidentscombined. Millions of nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke. You can’t reverse all that!

Chris:

OK, there’s no denying those terrible figures, but if these ads are only a drop in the bucket, what else would you like the tobacco companies to do?

Jessica:

Don’t get me wrong Chris, placing ads in newspapers and on television is a move in the right direction, but the way young people consume media has fundamentally changed. For instance, only about 5% of 18 to 29-year-old Americans get their news from printed media on a regular basis.

Chris:

Of course! They're all getting their news from YouTube and Facebook.

Jessica:

Or a variety of other popular platforms. So, you see, if these “corrective statement” ads are not seen on these key sites, unfortunately they won’t reach the youngest sections of the population. The same people who, of course, Big Tobacco sees as their future clients, which they need to replace the old and dying.

Chris:

Yikes! That’s a grim perspective... but I understand your point now. I would expect that people who smoked for years pretty much know by now that it’s addictive and not good for their health. So, I think you’re right, the focus should be on young people and if the ads are not effectively reaching them, then the entire campaign seems like a drop in the bucket.

Imagine filling a large bucket with water, one drop at a time. It would take a very long time to fill the bucket because a single drop is just a small fraction of all the water that is needed. The phrase “a drop in the bucket” refers to an amount which is very small. So small, in fact, that on its own it can be consideredinconsequential.

The expression is often used to illustrate how small something is, or how much more of something is needed to achieve a certain goal. It can also be used to criticize the relative value of a contribution, by making it sound unimportant or inadequate. Put simply, if we say that something is like a drop in the bucket, we mean that it’s a very small part of a larger whole.

As many popular phrases do, this one comes from the King James Bible . In the book of Isaiah, chapter 40, verse 15 (Isaiah 40:15) it reads: "Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance…”

Example 1:

An individual donation of $100 would be very generous, but it would still only be a drop in the bucket of our fundraising goal.

Example 2:

What I make in a year is a drop in the bucketcompared to what the CEO makes in a week!

Example 3:

5 tons of food and supplies sounds like a lot, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed to help those affected by the flood.

Let's practice pronunciation on few short phrases from today's episode.
Listen carefully how the native speaker pronounces each sentence.
Follow the intonations in each sentence. When you are ready, record one
paragraph at a time with your own voice and then compare
your pronunciation and intonations to the native speaker's: